chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/01/85)
There is an article in the 10/1 issue of the San Jose Mecury News with the
announcement that DRI has agreed to (effective 11/15) stop supporting the
current version of GEM and to ship a modified version to avoid charges of
copyright violations of Apple's software. Apple has claimed that GEM copied
"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's
copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and
icons that substantially resemble the Mac.
--
:From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach
nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui
If you can't talk below a bellow, you can't talk...lbl@druhi.UUCP (LocklearLB) (10/02/85)
>There is an article in the 10/1 issue of the San Jose Mecury News with the >announcement that DRI has agreed to (effective 11/15) stop supporting the >current version of GEM and to ship a modified version to avoid charges of >copyright violations of Apple's software. Apple has claimed that GEM copied >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and >icons that substantially resemble the Mac. > >-- >:From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach >nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui Is this for real????!!!!!??? How in the world can Apple claim to have a copyright on the "look and feel" of its Macintosh software when it is such a close copy of work done at Xerox Parc? I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on. I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it. Barry Locklear AT&T Information Systems Labs ihnp4!druhi!lbl
pwv@fluke.UUCP (Pat Vilbrandt) (10/03/85)
This is the announcement by Digital Research, Inc. as it appeared on the
Compuserve GEM SIG on Oct. 1. Seems as though DRI could use some better
lawers. (Maybe Xerox should sue Apple... :-)
========================================================================
Apple Computer and DRI today announced that DRI will take
immediate measures to make changes to its GEM computer programs
to avoid Apple's claims that the programs violate Apple's
copywrights. DRI states that these changes also prepare the way
for future enhancements to DRI's GEM products.
DRI agreed with Apple that is was beneficial to
substantially differentiate DRI's products and avoid any
possibility of infringement of Apple's copyrights.
GEM, which started shipping in April, is a portable
operating system extension available for use on a number of
personal computers. GEM is based on a graphics user interface
which uses windows, drop-down menus and icons. DRI has licensed
GEM to a number of personal computer manufacturers.
DRI also agreed to alter the style and format of its
advertising and not to engage in comparative advertising with
Apple products. DRI has agreed to disclaim any GEM program
compatibility with Apple products and to state that GEM programs
and Apple programs do not perform in the same manner.
In a signed document, DRI agreed to produce new versions of
GEM, designed to be substantially different than Apple's
Macintosh personal computer in both screen appearance and
operation. These changes are being reviewed by Apple to insure
they satisfy Apple's requirement that GEM programs no longer
appear to be substantially similar to Apple's programs. The
specific programs to be modifided by DRI as soon as possible are
GEM Desktop, GEM Paint and GEM Draw. When the new versions are
made available to DRI's OEM and retail customers, the older
versions will no longer continue to be marketed. The current GEM
programs will operate in the new GEM environment.
As part of a compromise and settlement, DRI has agreed to
pay Apple an undiscolosed amount and to work on Apple's software
development projects but denies any infringement of any Apple
rights. DRI and Apple have further agreed to engage in future
software developments.
--
Pat Vilbrandt
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
Everett, Washington USA
UUCP:
{ decvax!uw-beaver, ucbvax!lbl-csam, allegra, ssc-vax, decwrl!sun }!fluke!pwv
ARPA:
fluke!pwv@uw-beaver.ARPAeve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) (10/03/85)
> >... Apple has claimed that GEM copied > >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's > >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and > >icons that substantially resemble the Mac. > >:From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach Actually, I believe Apple has applied for a patent on the pull-down window approach. I don't know if the patent has been granted, and, even if it is granted, that may not guarantee the patent would hold up in court. If DRI has agreed to change GEM, it was probably to avoid a costly court fight. Apple is cash rich, and DRI is not. If Apple succeeds here, how about all the other standalone programs which now use pull-down windows? How about regular menus ( a listing of current options, enter a number to select an option) --- I'd like to apply for the patent on that. On a related note, a company has a new word processor which automatically completes words as you enter them. (e.g, you type in 'comple' and the program adds 'te'). The company has applied for a patent on their revolutionary application of AI. -- Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (10/04/85)
In article <87@druhi.UUCP> lbl@druhi.UUCP (LocklearLB) writes: >I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg >to stand on. I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on >this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it. Apple copyrighted the idea of "pull-down" menus about six months ago, i.e. the method of moving a on-screen pointer to the top of the screen and having the menu drop down. GEM (at least on the ST) has menus which come close to fitting this description. I was surprised to see this kind of a patent, also, but apparently Apple's lawyers made the claim quite solid, as can be seen by DEC's agreement to alter GEM without a fight. "I'm as doomed as doomed can be!" -Ed Grimley Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/05/85)
In article <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> pwv@fluke.UUCP (Pat Vilbrandt) writes: >This is the announcement by Digital Research, Inc. as it appeared on the >Compuserve GEM SIG on Oct. 1. Seems as though DRI could use some better >lawers. (Maybe Xerox should sue Apple... :-) Anyone who's seen a Xerox (anyone with a dandelion want to comment?) will be the first to admit similarities, but Apple went very strongly out in their own direction. The Mac isn't a copy of Xerox' work, it is just influenced by it. From what the releases say, that isn't as true of the Mac and GEM (I haven't seen GEM yet, so I won't comment on it). -- :From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui If you can't talk below a bellow, you can't talk...
gus@Shasta.ARPA (10/07/85)
> >There is an article in the 10/1 issue of the San Jose Mecury News with the > >announcement that DRI has agreed to (effective 11/15) stop supporting the > >current version of GEM and to ship a modified version to avoid charges of > >copyright violations of Apple's software. Apple has claimed that GEM copied > >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's > >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and > >icons that substantially resemble the Mac. > > > >-- > >:From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach > >nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui > > Is this for real????!!!!!??? How in the world can Apple claim to have a > copyright on the "look and feel" of its Macintosh software when it is such a > close copy of work done at Xerox Parc? > > I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg > to stand on. I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on > this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it. > > Barry Locklear > AT&T Information Systems Labs > ihnp4!druhi!lbl Apple may have used a windowing system for Lisa and Mac which was pioneered by Xerox PARC, but so have many other people. Take SUN Microsystems, symbolics, Microsoft, AT&T, and a slew of other people creating such systems. GEM, on the other hand, tries to emulate a MAC wondow system, not just any window system... from the position and look of windows, including the location of size and grow boxes, and the pattern of the racing stripes in the title bar. While it may be argued that Borland invented desk accessories with SideKick, it was Apple who built them into the system as a separate entity. DRI took the idea practically verbatim from the Mac replacing the Apple sysmbol by the work "Desk" Other menus as well have VERY close Mac counterparts. Oh yes, things are slightly different, but they are VERY similar. I hate to bring up the old issue of pull-down menus, but I think that Apple lawyers missed the boat when they pattented these menus. THeir main innovation comes from the fact that these menus are decleared and defined when the program is LAUNCHED, not when the user clicks in a particular area, or pushes one of the mouse buttons. This changes the entire structure of the program as far as menu definition code is concerned. More importantly the menu bar sets a standard for where menus should be found and lets the first time user of a program quickly discover the general range of features available from within the application. This sort of thing happened a few years ago with the arcade games vs home computer imitations that were not licensed with the original creators. The general outcome was that computer software firms such as broderbund no longer make games which look or play anything like any coin operated game, but which are still 'arcade' style games. Gus Fernandez
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (10/07/85)
In article <3226@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Anyone who's seen a Xerox (anyone with a dandelion want to comment?) will >be the first to admit similarities, but Apple went very strongly out in >their own direction. The Mac isn't a copy of Xerox' work, it is just >influenced by it. From what the releases say, that isn't as true of the Mac >and GEM (I haven't seen GEM yet, so I won't comment on it). I haven't seen any of the recent Xerox workstations (I used the Alto a little), but I figured this was the case. Xerox introduced (or at least popularized) the mouse and icons, but the detailed approaches are quite different. I believe that their interface was based primarily on dragging icons to other icons, which only survives in the Finder as the Trash and copying files -- in Xerox systems, one would print a file by dragging it to the printer icon, and I think one would invoke a program on a file by dragging the file to the program's icon (I think the printer and trash can were just particular cases of this general facility). I have used GEM a little, and it is a very close copy of the Mac. The standard desktop icons are in the same places (disk icons in top right, trash can in bottom right), the standard menus are almost identical, and window manipulation is the same (GEM added a minor extension: a "grow to full screen" icon in the top right corner of windows). According to an article in Macworld by one of the Lisa developers, pull-down menus and double-clicking to open objects were innovations of the Lisa team, and GEM copied these exactly. Anyone who knows how to use the Mac Finder can sit down and feel perfectly comfortable with Gem Desktop; I doubt that the same could be said about the Dandelion. -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
turner@saber.UUCP (D'arc Angel @ The Houses of the Holy) (10/07/85)
> >There is an article in the 10/1 issue of the San Jose Mecury News with the > >announcement that DRI has agreed to (effective 11/15) stop supporting the > >current version of GEM and to ship a modified version to avoid charges of > >copyright violations of Apple's software. Apple has claimed that GEM copied > >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's > >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and > >icons that substantially resemble the Mac. > > > >-- > >:From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach > >nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui > > Is this for real????!!!!!??? How in the world can Apple claim to have a > copyright on the "look and feel" of its Macintosh software when it is such a > close copy of work done at Xerox Parc? > > I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg > to stand on. I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on > this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it. > > Barry Locklear > AT&T Information Systems Labs > ihnp4!druhi!lbl *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** from what i hear (from inside a certain company involved in this) DRI is just plain chicken and doesnt want to risk a lawsuit -- god bless Lily St. Cyr -Rocky Horror Picture Show Name: James Turner Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101 Santa Clara, CA 95052-9400 AT&T: (408) 986-9400 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!negami!turner
turner@saber.UUCP (D'arc Angel @ The Houses of the Holy) (10/07/85)
> > >... Apple has claimed that GEM copied > > >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's > > >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and > > >icons that substantially resemble the Mac. > > > >:From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach > > Actually, I believe Apple has applied for a patent on the pull-down window > approach. I don't know if the patent has been granted, and, even if it is > granted, that may not guarantee the patent would hold up in court. > > -- > Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle > ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve i may be confused but i thought the "out" was that Apple used pop-up menus and DRI used pull-down. am i wrong ? is there a diff ? -- god bless Lily St. Cyr -Rocky Horror Picture Show Name: James Turner Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway, P.O. Box 58101 Santa Clara, CA 95052-9400 AT&T: (408) 986-9400 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!negami!turner
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) (10/07/85)
In article <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP>, pwv@fluke.UUCP (Pat Vilbrandt) writes: > Apple Computer and DRI today announced that DRI will take > immediate measures to make changes to its GEM computer programs > to avoid Apple's claims that the programs violate Apple's > copywrights. > .... omitted copy > These changes are being reviewed by Apple to insure > they satisfy Apple's requirement that GEM programs no longer > appear to be substantially similar to Apple's programs. The > specific programs to be modifided by DRI as soon as possible are > GEM Desktop, GEM Paint and GEM Draw. What does this do for PC-Paint? Joel West CACI, Inc. - Federal (c/o UC San Diego) {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@SDCSVAX.ARPA
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (10/07/85)
In article <2750@vax4.fluke.UUCP> moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) writes: >Apple copyrighted the idea of "pull-down" menus about six months ago, i.e. >the method of moving a on-screen pointer to the top of the screen and having >the menu drop down. GEM (at least on the ST) has menus which come close to >fitting this description. I was surprised to see this kind of a patent, >also, but apparently Apple's lawyers made the claim quite solid, as can be >seen by DEC's agreement to alter GEM without a fight. I'm sure that Jeff knows that GEM is made by DRI, not by DEC. (E-I-E-I-O, or something.... Don't you love alphabet soup?). I'm not tremendously surprised -- there were a number of lawsuits over PAC-MAN* several years ago, alleging that the maze/muncher/powerdots layout was copyrightable. The owners of PAC-Man were winning them (largely thru out of court settlements), right up till the bottom dropped out of the home video game market. * Disclaimer: PAC-MAN is a trademark of someone or other, who probably has a lawyer on my trail even now.... -- "What if they gave a net.flame ... and nobody came?" Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (10/08/85)
In article <27@mit-eddie.UUCP> barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: > >According to an >article in Macworld by one of the Lisa developers, pull-down menus and >double-clicking to open objects were innovations of the Lisa team, and >GEM copied these exactly. Anyone who knows how to use the Mac Finder >can sit down and feel perfectly comfortable with Gem Desktop; I doubt >that the same could be said about the Dandelion. Does anybody else out there think this matter of patenting a "look and feel" is stupid? If this is actually legal and defensible, then look for lots of things happening like Sony suing Sharp (my Sharp "Lynitron" TV looks an awful lot like a Sony "Triniton", right down to the logo), etc. Or how about the originator of the standard telephone design (Bell, GTE?) suing everyone else who makes a telephone? Or what about automobiles? There seem to be quite a few different companies, foreign and domestic, making cars with that "Fiero" design. Also, I would think that the powers-that-be at Apple would be flattered and slightly amused at the (unofficial) "Jackintosh" label, rather than claiming it's in bad taste. I personally would feel great if my idea became something of an industry standard, especially since I don't work for IB... oops, uh, for a certain company known for bludgeoning their way to industry norms. Anyway, those people at Apple Corp. should loosen up. - joel "vo" plutchak {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster Can you say "opinion"? I *knew* you could!
phil@talaris.UUCP (Phil Cohen) (10/08/85)
The pull down menus that apple is so protective of, seem to be direct extentions of the UCSD pascal system prompt line concept. Actually, when you get right down to it, the mac is a blend of the UCSD pascal system and the Xerox user interface. If anyone has rights to this technology, it is Xerox, NOT crapple. We all know this, I just had to say it again.
westerm@ecn-aa.UUCP (Richard P Westerman) (10/08/85)
In article <1790@saber.UUCP> turner@saber.UUCP (D'arc Angel @ The Houses of the Holy) writes: > >from what i hear (from inside a certain company involved in this) DRI is >just plain chicken and doesnt want to risk a lawsuit Yeah. No balls, no babies. I think it's a crying shame that DRI doesn't stand up and fight -- what is it going to do to their reputation and that of GEM? Nobody will believe that's it a mature product anymore. As for Apple's reputation -- well, it's already shot anyway, this can't dirty the waters any more than the already are. Whom: Rick Westerman Phone: +1-317-494-8344 UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, seismo, ucbvax}!pur-ee!westerm ARPA: westerm@purdue.ecn.ARPA USPS: Ag Data Network, Purdue University, West Lafayette IN 47907 "I think, therefore I am ... I think?"
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/09/85)
Background for net.micro.amiga-only types... DRI has been sued by apple for using the Mac desktop. They will be going after the AMIGA next, you can count on it. The GEM desktop has been changed: two windows only, no resizable windows, no trashcan, no horizontal scrollbars. Strange, since none of these things are original with the Mac, but I guess any lobotomisation would do. > In article <3226@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Anyone who's seen a Xerox (anyone with a dandelion want to comment?) will > >be the first to admit similarities, but Apple went very strongly out in > >their own direction. The Mac isn't a copy of Xerox' work, it is just > >influenced by it. From what the releases say, that isn't as true of the Mac > >and GEM (I haven't seen GEM yet, so I won't comment on it). > > I haven't seen any of the recent Xerox workstations (I used the Alto a > little), but I figured this was the case. Xerox introduced (or at least > popularized) the mouse and icons, but the detailed approaches are quite > different. I believe that their interface was based primarily on > dragging icons to other icons, which only survives in the Finder as the > Trash and copying files -- in Xerox systems, one would print a file by > dragging it to the printer icon, and I think one would invoke a program > on a file by dragging the file to the program's icon (I think the > printer and trash can were just particular cases of this general > facility). I played around with a STAR at NCC-82 here in Houston, and I remember that, too. You also sent mail by dropping it in your out-box. The reciever's in-box then changed from an empty-box-icon to a full-box-icon. Very nice. I hope that when Apple gets around to suing AMIGA or C= (depending on who they're maddest at), said company will go back to the pop-up menus and drag-and-drop model instead of lobotimising the AMIGA like DRI lobotomised GEM.
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/09/85)
Apropos to this... could anyone post the addresses (physical) to send impassioned pleas for intelligence and imagination in the changes to GEM, Intuition, and so on? There was a suggestion that we test the power of USENET by creating Cheese Triscuits. How about saving it for something more useful: either getting Apple to back down on this new idiocy or getting AMIGA and DRI to implement the STAR desktop instead of the MAC desktop & give Apple the finger. The AMIGA is very close as it is.
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/10/85)
In article <1538@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@maccunix.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) writes: > Does anybody else out there think this matter of patenting a "look and >feel" is stupid? If this is actually legal and defensible Actually, there is a lot of precedent in it. If you spent 10 man-years developing a product, and someone else ripped it off and spent 1 man-year copying it, selling it for half price, and putting you out of business, you'd think differently. Software is expensive, and good software is more expensive. If you can't protect your investment (and we're talking big bucks for software) long enough to make it pay off, then nobody is going to be doing it. If GEM had taken the Mac and bothered to fix its limitations, then more power to them -- that is evolutionary. What they seem to have done, though, is simply take the Mac and reinvent it, and that is plagiarism. -- :From the caverns of the Crystal Cave: Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid}!nsc!chuqui Our time is past -- it is a time for men, not magic. Come, let us leave this world to the usurpers and rest our weary bones....
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (10/10/85)
[Foot? Basket? Base?]
From: westerm@ecn-aa.UUCP (Richard P Westerman), Message-ID: <73@ecn-aa.UUCP>:
>Yeah. No balls, no babies.
Oh yeah? My mom's got no balls, and she had Three babies.
None that lived, tho....
[Oh, yeah, in case you couldn't tell: :-) ]
--
--JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)
"What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief?
Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like
the old Indian chief?" (The Roches)rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (10/11/85)
[ sacrifice to line eater bug -- patent pending ]
Yesterday I got a first hand example of why Apple is upset about
GEM. I was out at one of the national computer chain's store
here in town, and found all the Macintosh software shoved in
with the IBM versions of GEM software.
I went to 3 other stores, where they barely seemed to have heard
of the Macintosh (but were happy to sell me all the copies of
1-2-3 I could handle).
While they may not be justified in claiming the "look" as a
thing which can be owned (tho there *is* some legal precedent for
such claims), they are certainly justified in
worrying about people thinking it runs on a Macintosh.
Every week I talk to people who want to know if you can put
a Macintosh disk into an Apple II, or if their old Commodore
software can work on an IBM PC.
--
"PCs do not fit comfortably in the DEC computing environment".
-- from an ad for "Logicraft" in Digital Review
Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rickahby@meccts.UUCP (Shane P. McCarron) (10/13/85)
In article <1790@saber.UUCP> turner@saber.UUCP (D'arc Angel @ The Houses of the Holy) writes: >> >Apple has claimed that GEM copied >> >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's >> >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and >> >icons that substantially resemble the Mac. >> >> Is this for real????!!!!!??? How in the world can Apple claim to have a >> copyright on the "look and feel" of its Macintosh software when it is such a >> close copy of work done at Xerox Parc? >> >> I don't have any legal expertise, but it looks like Apple doesn't have a leg >> to stand on. I hope that someone with some legal knowledge will comment on >> this because I don't see how Apple can get away with it. >> >from what i hear (from inside a certain company involved in this) DRI is >just plain chicken and doesnt want to risk a lawsuit When I was out at Apple last fall, they told me they had a patent on that type of interface. I'm not sure that this is correct, but that's what they said. If it is the case, they could certainly claim that DRI was copying the "look and feel" of the Mac interface. -- Shane P. McCarron Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicomed!meccts!ahby
gus@Shasta.ARPA (10/14/85)
> Apropos to this... could anyone post the addresses (physical) to send > impassioned pleas for intelligence and imagination in the changes to > GEM, Intuition, and so on? There was a suggestion that we test the power > of USENET by creating Cheese Triscuits. How about saving it for > something more useful: either getting Apple to back down on this new idiocy > or getting AMIGA and DRI to implement the STAR desktop instead of the > MAC desktop & give Apple the finger. The AMIGA is very close as it is. Why can't DRI make the GEM desktop? If you all want to send letters to DRI giving suggestions for the "new" GEM look, that's all well and good, but there is still plenty of room for creativity in window oriented interfaces without stepping on someone elses toes. I see Sun Windows, Microsoft Windows, Xerox Cedar, and Xerox Smalltalk as four different interpretations of the desktop metaphor which look nothing like the Mac. If there is anyone lackiing is creativity, it's DRI.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/16/85)
In article <280@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >The GEM desktop has been changed: two windows only, no resizable windows, >no trashcan, no horizontal scrollbars. Strange, since none of these things >are original with the Mac, but I guess any lobotomisation would do. > Only TWO windows!! NO trashcan!?!? These change would make GEM almost useless! Remind me not to buy this product! And to think a month ago GEM was supposed to be the best windowing system around for MS-DOS. Ce la vie! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (10/17/85)
> > Apropos to this... could anyone post the addresses (physical) to send > > impassioned pleas for intelligence and imagination in the changes to > > GEM, Intuition, and so on? There was a suggestion that we test the power > > of USENET by creating Cheese Triscuits. How about saving it for > > something more useful: either getting Apple to back down on this new idiocy > > or getting AMIGA and DRI to implement the STAR desktop instead of the > > MAC desktop & give Apple the finger. The AMIGA is very close as it is. > > Why can't DRI make the GEM desktop? If you all want to send letters to DRI > giving suggestions for the "new" GEM look, that's all well and good, but > there is still plenty of room for creativity in window oriented interfaces > without stepping on someone elses toes. I see Sun Windows, Microsoft Windows, > Xerox Cedar, and Xerox Smalltalk as four different interpretations of the > desktop metaphor which look nothing like the Mac. If there is anyone lackiing > is creativity, it's DRI. Good point! However, I like the object-orientation of the STAR Desktop and wish that SOMEONE would make it available in a consumer-affordable form, since Xerox apparently refuses to do so. -- - bc - ..!{seismo,topaz,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc (512) 835-2266
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (10/18/85)
In article <795@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <280@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >>The GEM desktop has been changed: two windows only, no resizable windows, >>no trashcan, no horizontal scrollbars. Strange, since none of these things >>are original with the Mac, but I guess any lobotomisation would do. >> > Only TWO windows!! NO trashcan!?!? These change would make GEM >almost useless! Remind me not to buy this product! And to think a >month ago GEM was supposed to be the best windowing system around for >MS-DOS. Ce la vie! >-- > Seems to me that MS-DOS will have to rely on hacks of AT&T's windowing UNIX for their 6300, out Very Soon Now (the hack's so it will run on other than the 6300). Somehow I doubt that Apple will sue AT&T over that one... Peter Korn korn%ucbcory@Berkeley.ARPA
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/19/85)
> > > >... Apple has claimed that GEM copied > > > >"The look and feel" or its Macintosh software and violated Apple's > > > >copyright. GEM uses, among other things, windowns, drop-down menus, and > > > >icons that substantially resemble the Mac. > > > > > >:From under the bar at Callahan's: Chuq Von Rospach > > > > Actually, I believe Apple has applied for a patent on the pull-down window > > approach. I don't know if the patent has been granted, and, even if it is > > granted, that may not guarantee the patent would hold up in court. > > > > -- > > Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle > > ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve > I personally do not want to see Apple get a patent for there (Xerox) user friendly operating system. What we need in the computer world is more user friendly operating systems, not some small upstart dominating the whole concept of user friendly machines. Granting a patent will set computer friendliness back too many years.
xxajtxx@hou2d.UUCP (A.THANGARAJ) (10/23/85)
<<<<<<<%%%%%%%######|||||$$$$!!!&&(line^eater)&&!!!$$$$|||||######%%%%%%%>>>>>>>
The visionary light has gone out of Apple. The company has become yet
another short-sighted next-quarter-oriented concern. Does Apple really believe
that by forcing DRI to cripple GEMDRAW they are going to sell more MACS?
People who buy IBM PCs or compatibles will continue to do so for whatever
reasons they buy them today - they are not going to rush out and buy MACS
because DRI crippled GEM.
A more visionary Apple might have forseen that GEM, by introducing
IBM PC and compatible users to a MAC-like interface, was helping to propagate
a standard user interface in the PC industry; in an industry full of
incompatibilities, standards are sorely needed, and GEM is/was helping to
bring together the MAC world and the IBM compatible world, at least at the
user interface level. If only all drawing, painting and desktop programs would
confirm to a standard screen display (scroll bars, close boxes, windows of
variable size, multiple overlaid windows, etc.) the personal computer industry
as a whole would benefit: when users are confronted by a bewildering array of
choices, they are turned off and tend to postpone purchase; when faced with an
industry standard, they feel more comfortable in going ahead and taking the
plunge. This would, in the long run, benefit Apple itself!
Instead, Apple has earned the resentment of personal computer users
by its heavy-handed actions. Its efforts at denying user-friendly interfaces
for the masses will backfire: Whereas the "MAC-like User Interface" may have
soon become the industry standard, displacing anything put out by IBM or
Microsoft, Apple has now forfeited that position.
Maybe its not too late. Apple, could you please offer to license your
user-interface to all-comers for a nominal sum? You will benefit in the
long run.
....arun.
_______ _______
Suite HR1K228 / * \ _ / * \ all views are
| * | / \ | * |
480 Red Hill Rd |* * H * *| <(GSP)> |* * R * *| MY OWN only,
| * | \_/ | * |
Middletown NJ 07748 | * |Garden State | * | not my employer's.
+-------------+ Parkway +-------------+
hou2d!xxajtxx | R E D |Exit 114 | H I L L | ...the future
+-------------------------------------------+
201-949-9127 |R E Q U I E M B Y T H E P A R K W A Y| lies in PC's
+-------------------------------------------+ awd@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Andrew W. Donoho) (10/24/85)
Many of the folks who are criticizing Apple for givin DRI trouble may not be aware of what some Apple employees have told me is one reason for this action. GEM just isn't a good system. The fact that it resembles the Macintosh/Lisa cosmetically could easily turn a lot of people off to that whole style of working just because of the inadequacy of the DRI design/implementation. I don't think that this has any bearing on the legal issues, but from the standpoint of Apple's motivation, I find it easy to believe that they would not want what I (and apparently, they) consider a second-rate "desktop-style" system to be the standard on many machines. No one is going to switch to a Macintosh if they are led to believe that GEM is typical of a state of the art desktop system. Darin Adler
davidl@teklds.UUCP (David Levine) (10/24/85)
In article <799@hou2d.UUCP> xxajtxx@hou2d.UUCP (A.THANGARAJ) writes: > A more visionary Apple might have forseen that GEM, by introducing >IBM PC and compatible users to a MAC-like interface, was helping to propagate >a standard user interface in the PC industry... > ... If only all drawing, painting and desktop programs would >confirm to a standard screen display, ... the personal computer industry >as a whole would benefit... >This would, in the long run, benefit Apple itself! > ... Whereas the "MAC-like User Interface" may have >soon become the industry standard, displacing anything put out by IBM or >Microsoft, Apple has now forfeited that position. I just have to put my two bits in on this one. Apple has nothing to gain and everything to lose by letting the "Mac-LIKE user interface" (emphasis mine) become a standard. The hordes of business computer users who think that IBM is the only name in computers have no reason to buy Apple products unless they are in some way clearly superior to IBM. This superiority can be in price, features, performance or what have you, as long as it's enough of a DIFFERENCE to make up for lack of IBM compatibility. If the "Mac-like user interface" is available on the IBM PC, short-sighted grey suits will see no reason at all to buy a Mac. Thus, Apple (as a profit-making business) has no choice but to protect its differences. This article reminds me of those who said in 1980 that IBM's entry into the personal computer field would "legitimize" the industry. (Remember when "PC" meant "a personal computer", not "an IBM-compatible 16-bit MS-DOS computer"? Remember Osborne and Victor? Remember when micros were an adventure?) I've directed followups to net.micro.pc only. This branch of the discussion is taking off in an IBM-compatible direction. By the way, what DOES that .signature with the two tombstones mean? David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!teklds!davidl) [UUCP] (teklds!davidl.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA/CSNET] P.S. Forgive me for spouting off, but it looks like I'm going to be forced to use a PC at work (can you imagine the pain of using MS-DOS every day when you're used to the power of UNIX?) and the very thought of IBM just makes me sick.
sman@pilchuck.UUCP (Michael Spillman) (10/25/85)
> A more visionary Apple might have forseen that GEM, by introducing > IBM PC and compatible users to a MAC-like interface, was helping to propagate > a standard user interface in the PC industry; in an industry full of > incompatibilities, standards are sorely needed, and GEM is/was helping to > bring together the MAC world and the IBM compatible world, at least at the > user interface level. If only all drawing, painting and desktop programs would > for the masses will backfire: Whereas the "MAC-like User Interface" may have > soon become the industry standard, displacing anything put out by IBM or > Microsoft, Apple has now forfeited that position. > Maybe its not too late. Apple, could you please offer to license your > user-interface to all-comers for a nominal sum? You will benefit in the > long run. 1) You don't make money by giving away your product. 2) IBM would have NEVER advertised their product as "Mac-compatible" That would have made them appear to acknowledge a peer, which, in their eyes, they have none. ***** UNIX: So much entropy, so little work. A VMS hacker and UNIX abuser. M. D. Spillman a.k.a. ...uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!pilchuck!sman
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/25/85)
> bearing on the legal issues, but from the standpoint of Apple's > motivation, I find it easy to believe that they would not want what I > (and apparently, they) consider a second-rate "desktop-style" system > to be the standard on many machines. No one is going to switch to a > Macintosh if they are led to believe that GEM is typical of a state of > the art desktop system. I'd believe this if they didn't say they were going after the AMIGA next (which they have been quoted as saying in InfoWorld). The AMIGA is in no way a bad implementation of the desktop metaphor. Of course no-one is going to switch to a Mac once they get their hands on an AMIGA either. I just wish the AMIGA icons didn't look so hokey. Time to pull out the old binary editor. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
tomm@asgb.UUCP (Tom Mackey) (10/28/85)
Wait a minute: "GEM is not a good product"? People using GEM won't buy a Mac?
What drivel! I've just spent a month evaluating GEM, and the GEM toolkit, and
beg to differ. GEM offers a desk-top metaphor user interface management system
to the PClone world. Last year, when I finally decided to buy a personal
computer for myself and my family, I bought a PCjr, not because I could run
GEM, but because it would run most of the software I had purchased during my
years in manufacturing engineering and as a college student. The fact that
GEM was available never entered into it. The typical GEM user picked it up
AFTER they already owned or had access to a PC or clone thereof. While I do
not like the layout of the toolkit, (I prefer an object oriented approach), it
is in many ways similar to that of the Macintosh. The appearence of the
desktop is the largest similarity to the Mac, and is the only thing in question.
If Apple employees are saying that GEM is inferior, then they should look at
their own problems as well. The underlaying toolkit, as mentioned before, is
similar. When I say I prefer an object oriented approach, I mean that I would
prefer that the underlying tools would be object classes. But the Mac and GEM
toolkits both provide a procedural interface, which in turn forces the resulting
interface to be more internal than external. GEM is a good product. As an
experianced computer user, I am happy with a command line interface. I have
been evaluting TopView (c IBM) as well, and MUCH prefer GEM. I use GEM when-
ever I have a lot of file copying or moving to do. I usually fire up GEM,
then escape to the MS-DOS command. I may then use the command line interface
as I wish, yet can use the GEM goodies by simply typing "exit". I agree with
a previous poster that Apple would be better off allowing desk-top metaphor
products on non-Mac hardware. Such a strategy would lead to wide acceptance
of such user interface management systems. I have little doubt that Apple
is in a better place than any one else to further the state of the art in
such UIMS's, and if they would spend more time being the inovative company
I have always thought of them as, and less time bitching about imitators,
they could become the industry leaders they think of themselves as.
I have no interest in whether Apple products are superior to IBM products or
DRI products. I choose what I buy based on the greatest functionality for my
money. I would hope that most other people do the same. Instead of trying
to provide functionality, over the last two years or so, Apple has instead
chosen to provide hype. I sincerely hope they get back on course!
Tom Mackey ihnp4!sabre!\
hplabs!sdcrdcf!-bmcg!asgb!tomm
{ ihnp4, ucbvax, allegra }!sdcsvax!/
Burroughs Distributed Systems Group Boulder, Coloradodgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (10/30/85)
> . . . While I do > not like the layout of the [GEM] toolkit, . . . it is in many ways > similar to that of the Macintosh. The appearence of the desktop is the > largest similarity to the Mac, and is the only thing in question. > > . . . I agree with > a previous poster that Apple would be better off allowing desk-top > metaphor products on non-Mac hardware. Such a strategy would lead to > wide acceptance of such user interface management systems. > -- Tom Mackey Of course, it was the Xerox Star, and not the Lisa or Mac, that first introduced this sort of interface to the commercial market. (The most noticeable difference between the Star and the Mac is the "wait" cursor being an hour glass on the Star and a wristwatch on the Mac.) As for this point-and-click becoming widely accepted, it is already in use on a large number of workstation-class machines, and a presentation on future directions offered by IBM in Rockville this past summer all but promised that IBM would move in this direction as well. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary